UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA :
:
v. : Criminal Action No.: 23-309 (RC)
:
SHAMELL NAQUAN JOYNER, : Re Document No.: 150
:
Defendant. :
MEMORANDUM OPINION
DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE UNAUTHENTICATED PHOTOGRAPHS
I. INTRODUCTION
Just before a jury trial began in his case, Defendant Shamell Naquan Joyner moved to
exclude the Government from offering six still images at trial—namely, Government Exhibits
202 through 205 and 211 through 212 (the “Speedway Screenshots”)—that were purportedly
taken from a surveillance video at the Speedway gas station at 620 South Patrick Street in
Alexandria, Virginia. See Def.’s Mot. Exclude Unauthenticated Photographs (“Def.’s Mot.”),
ECF No. 150. At trial, Metropolitan Police Detective Thomas O’Donnell testified that he
traveled to the Speedway as part of his investigation of an armed carjacking charged in this case,
reviewed the gas station’s CCTV footage, and personally created the screenshots at issue from
the footage. See July 15 PM Tr. at 74:15–77:18. Because the original CCTV footage was not
preserved, however, Mr. Joyner objects to the admission of the Speedway Screenshots on
authentication and spoliation grounds. See Def.’s Mot. at 1; Def.’s Reply in Supp. Def.’s Mot.
(“Def.’s Reply”) at 3, ECF No. 159. For the reasons stated on the record, and as further
explained below, this motion is denied.
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Among other offenses, Mr. Joyner is charged with carjacking a 2021 Honda HR-V from
L Street, NW, Washington, D.C. on the afternoon of April 13, 2023. See Superseding Indictment
at 3, ECF No. 27. According to the Government, after Mr. Joyner forced out the HR-V’s owner,
Z.S.M., from the vehicle, Mr. Joyner stole Z.S.M.’s wallet and credit card. See Gov’t’s Opp’n to
Def.’s Mot. (“Gov’t’s Opp’n”) at 2, ECF No. 155. As part of his investigation of the carjacking,
Detective O’Donnell testified that he interviewed Z.S.M. and learned that his stolen credit card
was used at the Speedway gas station in Alexandria shortly after the carjacking. See July 15 PM
Tr. at 73:3–74:10. A few days after the carjacking, Detective O’Donnell stated that he traveled
to the Speedway, at which point an employee allowed him to review the gas station’s CCTV
footage. Id. at 77:1–22.
Detective O’Donnell observed on the footage that at 5:38 PM on April 13, 2023, a
vehicle consistent with the carjacked HR-V pulled up to the gas station, after which the driver
exited the vehicle, made a transaction at the gas station, and then drove off in the vehicle. Id. at
78:11–79:6. Detective O’Donnell proceeded to export the footage onto a hard drive, which he
took back to his office and later used to create screenshots of the vehicle and its driver. Id. at
79:14–19. These still images are the Speedway Screenshots that the Government sought to
admit. Detective O’Donnell testified that he maintained possession of a physical copy of the
video footage, which he later turned over to the special agent in charge of the investigation. Id.
at 81:6–14. The physical copy has unfortunately been lost.
At trial, in addition to Detective O’Donnell, the Government called as a witness Earl
Winterling, an Asset Protection Specialist for 7-Eleven. Mr. Winterling testified that 7-Eleven
has acquired all Speedway gas stations, including the one at 620 South Patrick Street in
2
Alexandria, Virginia, and that in his role, he has access to and has become familiar with
Speedway’s video systems. See July 14 AM Tr. at 24:4–25. Mr. Winterling testified to
Speedway’s general recordkeeping practices and testified that in April of 2023, the Speedway in
question maintained a functioning video system. Id. at 25:13–19.
III. ANALYSIS
Mr. Joyner objects to the admission of the Speedway Screenshots on authentication
grounds because, in his view, neither Detective O’Donnell nor Mr. Winterling were able to
establish through trial testimony that the video footage from which the Speedway Screenshots
were taken was accurately maintained on the day in question. As a result, Defense counsel
argues that a proper foundation for the authenticity of the images has not been laid pursuant to
Federal Rule of Evidence 901. See July 15 PM Tr. at 105:7–12. Alternatively, Mr. Joyner
argues that the Government’s failure to preserve the original footage warrants exclusion of the
screenshots. See Def.’s Reply at 3. The Court finds that exclusion is not warranted on either
authentication or spoliation grounds.
A. Authentication
Federal Rule of Evidence 901(a) governs the authentication of evidence. To satisfy the
requirement of authenticating an item of evidence, “the proponent must produce evidence
sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is.” Fed. R. Evid.
901(a). “The question for the Court under Rule 901 is whether the proponent of the evidence has
‘offered a foundation from which the jury could reasonably find that the evidence is what the
proponent says it is.’” United States v. Safavian, 435 F. Supp. 2d 36, 38 (D.D.C. 2006) (quoting
5 Federal Rules of Evidence Manual § 901.02[1] at 901-5–901-6). To make this determination,
the court must evaluate “whether there is enough support in the record to warrant a reasonable
3
person in determining that the evidence is what it purports to be.” United States v. Blanchard,
867 F.3d 1, 6 (1st Cir. 2017) (citation modified). One way to authenticate an item of evidence
under Rule 901 is through the “testimony of a witness with knowledge” that the “item is what it
is claimed to be.” Fed. R. Evid. 901(b)(1) (citation modified).
“The threshold for the Court’s determination of authenticity is not high.” Safavian, 435
F. Supp. 2d at 38; see also United States v. Ortiz, 966 F.2d 707, 716 (1st Cir. 1992) (“The rule
does not erect a particularly high hurdle.”). “The Court need not find that the evidence is
necessarily what the proponent claims, but only that there is sufficient evidence that the jury
ultimately might do so.” Id. Accordingly, this standard does not “require the proponent ‘to rule
out all possibilities inconsistent with authenticity, or to prove beyond any doubt that the evidence
is what it purports to be.’” United States v. Hassanshahi, 195 F. Supp. 3d 35, 48 (D.D.C. 2016)
(quoting United States v. Pluta, 176 F.3d 43, 49 (2d Cir.1999)).
Under Rule 901’s liberal standard, the combined testimonies of Mr. Winterling and
Detective O’Donnell are sufficient to authenticate the Speedway Screenshots. As the
Government argues, Mr. Winterling “laid the foundation . . . that this particular Speedway
location kept video camera . . . in the normal course of its business.” July 15 PM Tr. at 105:19–
25; see also July 14 AM Tr. at 30:3–6 (The Government: “Mr. Winterling, based on your
position and the access to the records that you have, in April of 2023, did Speedway maintain
this camera system for a business purpose?” Mr. Winterling: “Yes, sir.”). The Defense counters
that neither Mr. Winterling nor Detective O’Donnell can establish that the Speedway’s video
system maintained accurate footage on the day that Z.S.M.’s credit card was fraudulently used.
See July 15 PM Tr. at 105:7–12. It is true that Mr. Winterling was unable to confirm whether the
Speedway system maintained reliable footage that day. See July 14 AM Tr. at 29:9–22.
4
However, Detective O’Donnell testified that when he personally reviewed the footage, just a few
days after the incident in question, he verified that the Speedway’s video system’s time stamps
matched the real time by comparing the live footage with the time on his iPhone. See July 15
PM Tr. at 77:19–78:10.
Certainly, the Government’s proffered evidence does not “prove beyond any doubt” that
the Speedway Screenshots are accurate snapshots of CCTV footage that reliably depicted the
events that transpired at the gas station at around 5:38 PM on April 13, 2023. Hassanshahi, 195
F. Supp. 3d at 48. But Mr. Joyner’s asserted flaws in authentication “go to the weight of the
evidence instead of its admissibility.” Id. (citation omitted). In light of Mr. Winterling’s
testimony that the Speedway maintained a camera system for business purposes in April of 2023
and Detective O’Donnell’s testimony that this system maintained accurate records a few days
after April 13, the Court finds that there is sufficient evidence “to warrant a reasonable person”
in finding that the Speedway Screenshots are what they purport to be. See Blanchard, 867 F.3d
at 6 (citation modified).
B. Spoliation
Mr. Joyner alternatively argues that the Government’s failure to preserve Detective
O’Donnell’s copy of the original CCTV footage warrants exclusion of the Speedway Screenshots
under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16. See Def.’s Reply at 3. Rule 16(a)(1)(E)(ii)
provides that “[u]pon a defendant’s request, the government must permit the defendant to
inspect” items such as “photographs,” including “copies or portions” of such items, if, among
other things, “the government intends to use the item in its case-in-chief at trial.” Fed. R. Crim.
P. 16(a)(1)(E)(ii). Prior to a request for evidence, “the duty of disclosure is operative as a duty
of preservation.” United States v. Harris, No. 20-cr-108, 2021 WL 1546541, at *2 (D.D.C. Apr.
5
20, 2021) (citation omitted). Here, the original CCTV footage was arguably a “cop[y] or
portion[ ]” of the Speedway Screenshots that the Government intended to introduce in its casein-chief, meaning it had a duty to preserve the original footage. “When the Government has
failed to preserve evidence, the Court has discretion to impose a wide range of sanctions”
pursuant to Rule 16. United States v. Vanterpool, No. 25-cr-138-1, 2026 WL 810005, at *6
(D.D.C. Mar. 24, 2026). But “although Rule 16 gives trial judges the option of suppressing
evidence as a result of [a party’s] discovery violations, such a severe sanction would seldom be
appropriate where,” as here, “the trial court finds that [the party’s] violation did not result from
its bad faith and that a less drastic remedy . . . will mitigate any unfair prejudice.” United States
v. Gray-Burriss, 791 F.3d 50, 55–56 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (citation modified). Rather than excluding
the Speedway Screenshots, the Court will instead instruct the jury regarding the Government’s
failure to preserve the original footage. 1
1
For example, the Court could draw on Instruction 2.322 (“Late Disclosure or NonDisclosure of Evidence”) from the Criminal Jury Instructions for the District of Columbia. Such instruction could read as follows:
You heard testimony about screenshots allegedly depicting a fraudulent
transaction at a Speedway gas station and about how the Government did not
preserve the full surveillance video from which the screenshots were
captured. The Government was required to preserve and disclose the full video to
Mr. Joyner. Because the Government failed to do so, Mr. Joyner did not have the
opportunity to investigate the full video and possibly present additional evidence
related to unpreserved portions of the video. You may consider the Government’s
failure to preserve and disclose the full video and give it as much weight as in
your judgment it deserves.
6
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s motion to exclude unauthenticated photographs
(ECF No. 150) is DENIED. An order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is separately
and contemporaneously issued.
Dated: July 16, 2026 RUDOLPH CONTRERAS
United States District Judge
7